Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20181212 1 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION DECEMBER 12, 2018 Commissioners in attendance: Gretchen Greenwood, Jeffrey Halferty, Nora Berko, Roger Moyer, Bob Blaich, Richard Lai, Sheri Sanzone, Scott Kendrick. Absent was Willis Pember. Staff present: Nicole Henning, Deputy City Clerk James R. True, City Attorney Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Officer Sarah Yoon, Historic Preservation Planner Jessica Garrow, Community Development Director APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Mr. Blaich motioned to approve the minutes of November 14th & 28th, Mr. Halferty seconded. All in favor, motion carried. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS: Ms. Berko thanked council and staff for putting the work session together. Ms. Garrow agreed that we need to have these sessions with council at least once a year if not more. Ms. Berko said once a month and Ms. Greenwood said twice a year would be good. Ms. Garrow mentioned there will be a new council in June, so it would be good to connect with them. Mr. Halferty thanked staff and the board for the work on preservation over the past year. He said it’s been an excellent year with a lot of learning experiences. He thanked staff for the meeting with council and wished everyone happy holidays. Mr. Blaich seconded. Ms. Sanzone thanked staff for the gifts. DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICT: Ms. Sanzone said she is conflicted on 517 E. Hopkins. PROJECT MONITORING: Aspen Meadows Reception Center Amy Simon Ms. Simon said this was continued from the site visit and the previous meeting. Ms. Simon and Mr. Curtis have met, and they have agreed that the window being changed to a door is not original. APPLICANT PRESENTATION: Jeff Berkus of Jeffrey Berkus Architects, Jim Curtis. Mr. Berkus said they presented two options in the field. There is an option to keep the existing door as is with the addition of two and half inches to the panel to meet code. We would have to hinge it on the left side and cut out about 6 inches of wall, which would pull it out of alignment with the T. He shares some concern on this. It would not be its original size or configuration. That is not their preferred solution, but instead they want to take the window and door assembly done in 1993 and mirror it to the other corner by hinging the door on the left side and adding a side panel. It would maintain the integrity of the window assembly’s running across the side of the building and would maintain Herbert Bayer’s three-foot module. Ms. Berko asked for a visual of the first option. Mr. Berkus said the door panel is too small for egress. We didn’t show a proposal where we would keep the door and add a new door adjacent to it. In his mind, that would look a little foreign. The patterning 2 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION DECEMBER 12, 2018 would be a little awkward and would be kind of a lot going on there. Ms. Greenwood said the conflict seems to come with removing some of the original Herbert Bayer detail. You could egress out of it to the right of the door and then everyone has what they want. Mr. Halferty said that his concern was the rhythm of the door. It is not in rhythm with the 1993 addition. Ms. Simon said staff prefers the widened door and not completely reconstructing it. It does open up as we are standing on the site. We do have examples of Victorian buildings where an original wooden door has been expanded. Ms. Greenwood suggested a stainless-steel panel around it would be code legal and still showcases the historic door. Ms. Sanzone said the door itself has to increase in size and asked about the integrity of it. Mr. Berkus said the door itself is pretty much a mess and the integrity of the door has been compromised. We would advocate for rebuilding it. If we push the door to meet code, we’d take the structural “T” out, so we would be restructuring that. If we put the door in a new frame, it’s possible to keep it more in line. Mr. Lai asked if it’s possible to have an accurate rendering or model of the frame and said he doesn’t know whether his vision is the same as everyone else’s, so he’d like to see a detailed rendering. Mr. Berkus said it would look exactly like the other door assembly because we don’t need it looking like a third thing. It would look exactly like the door to the right with a solid panel adjacent to it. Ms. Greenwood thinks that would look appropriate because it’s historic. Mr. Berkus thinks it will look awkward and Ms. Berko said it already looks awkward, so it will probably look the same. Mr. Curtis said he understands the door is not in the best shape. There have been so many manipulations to the south elevation over time, so we would prefer to match the storefront. The storefront was done in 1965 by Benedict and Bayer. Having consistency in the store front is more accurate with the overall façade of the building. The functionality and use of the building has evolved over time. Matching 1965 and 1993 pulls the whole building together. There are three windows upstairs and it’s reasonable to see that one was done in 1958 and one in 1993 so the building has changed so much. Ms. Simon said she doesn’t think it’s a good idea to think that way because there has been so much done already, we shouldn’t just keep going down that road. It’s one of the few buildings designed by Benedict and Byer together and it’s such an interesting combination of their ideas. It would be a shame to lose a section of this wall. We shouldn’t second guess Bayer’s reasoning for this. It is not an easily made decision, so we need to stick to preservation being our goal. Our real position is that we want to add to the door and keep a minimal amount of work to the stone and deal with staff and monitor. Mr. Moyer said he concurs with staff. Mr. Blaich said he’s worried about the function of the door. We saw the condition and it won’t get better, so we should be assured that whatever we do to it, fixes the problem. Mr. Kendrick said he doesn’t like losing all the stone and supports staff as well. Mr. Lai said we should keep as much stone as possible. Ms. Berko said the whole building has changed, and she hears that. She’s been around too long, and this door is all that is left for her. If there is a way of reusing it, she would love to see it stick around. If we can bring this door into the 21st century, let’s do it. 3 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION DECEMBER 12, 2018 Mr. Halferty said he doesn’t love either solution. By the time you picture frame it, you’re losing some of the modernist feel of the wall. He thinks there’s a better internal solution. He mentioned keeping the door as a primary person instead of a third-class citizen and make the egress work. He wants to make it work for the owners. It is an important façade for the building and is seen by a lot of people. The width is a problem, but there isn’t an easy clean-cut solution. Ms. Sanzone asked if it is possible to replace the door with the store front style and not add the sidelight. Mr. Berkus said the second option was just to have the door without the sidelight. Ms. Greenwood said the board is generally agreeing with staff. Ms. Simon said that everyone would like to see a drawing of what this really is. We can assign a monitor or come back to the next HPC meeting. Ms. Greenwood said a monitor could work. Mr. Berkus said what is on the screen is exactly what this will look like. We won’t be able to come back and show anything different. Mr. Curtis reminded everyone that the request from the Aspen Institute is to be ADA compliant for patrons in wheelchairs, so they can get in and out of this building. We don’t always have access to the other doors when separate events are going on. The room layout was shown on screen. Ms. Greenwood said that as a board, we can say no, we don’t allow it, or we follow staff to give the applicant some room to maintain some of the historic fabric and give the institute what they want. Or third, we give the applicants what they want by doing a storefront design to match what was done in 1993. Mr. Berkus said he has spent 15 years respecting Herbert Bayer’s work on this campus and has worked for many years to maintain Mr. Bayer’s work, so he’s very conflicted about this. A clean, clear voice is what Mr. Bayer always strove for. Ms. Greenwood said she respects what he has done. Ms. Greenwood asked to take a straw vote on option #3. Mr. Blaich and Ms. Sanzone voted in favor of option #3 to make it match and with an all new door. Ms. Greenwood called for a straw vote of option #2, which is staff’s recommendation. Ms. Greenwood, Mr. Lai, Ms. Berko, Mr. Moyer, Mr. Pember and Mr. Halferty were in agreement for option #2. Ms. Greenwood and Mr. Halferty volunteered to be the monitors and Mr. Berkus will send the design to Ms. Simon and share with them. STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Simon said thank you to the board and she hopes they enjoy the gift from the Community Development department. She mentioned the Christmas party on Friday night at the Limelight at 6:30. The Colorado preservation conference will be in February as usual in Denver and in the past, we’ve had a few members join. They’ve changed it a little this year as it will no longer be in the convention center and they also changed the days of the week. It is now a Monday to Thursday thing, instead of towards the end of the week. It will be February 4th - 7th. One member should attend, so please email her with interest. Also, the National Trust conference will be in Denver in October. It is a big deal. She will send out an email reminder. There are professional education credits available for AIA. CERTIFICATE OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT: None. 4 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION DECEMBER 12, 2018 PUBLIC NOTICE: Ms. Simon handed to Mr. True. CALL UPS: None. Ms. Sanzone exited the meeting. NEW BUSINESS: 517 E Hopkins Amy Simon This is for a proposed demolition and replacement from a 2016 approval. What you are discussing tonight is for a proposed amendment. In August, we discussed an annex for City Hall. That was approved, but not by the voters. A number of architectural changes to the front and rear façades discussed at that time and are basically the same. The site plan approval was shown on screen. The public amenity has not changed. The street façade was shown on screen. The store front moved up closer to the street, we lost a bridge/deck. It created a two-story glazing wall, so HPC established a condition which is included in tonight’s resolution. They will be enlivening the façade with a lot more windows. This design is acceptable and will contribute to the alley scape, but it may need to be revised. The main change is the programming in the building. The approval that HPC granted was commercial in basement, commercial on the main floor and affordable housing occupying the entire second floor. There are currently four studio apartments in the building and they are occupied. The applicant had intended to replace the four units and add a few more to generate affordable housing credits. On the right is what is proposed, which is all commercial net leasable space and all of the affordable housing replaced with credits. APCHA has submitted a referral comment. Staff feels that the four existing housing units need to be replaced on site. We feel this is important to address city goals of the housing deficit. We don’t want to miss any opportunities to address this issue. Affordable housing credits are great and have helped, but we need other solutions. We are recommending approval once we solve the issue of mitigation with the following conditions: 1. Center module needs some design to reduce the scale 2. Material for the public amenity space needs further definition 3. Repeating the previous agreement that 285 sq. ft. of the public amenity is on site and the rest is on the streetscape 4. Applicant gets credit for the existing building. 12,756 sq. ft. of net leasable space. The commercial space will have some mitigation 5. Five full time employees living in this building, so these FTE’s must be replaced at category 1. Staff wants onsite units. 6. Applicant will have to mitigate for any new net leasable space beyond the credit at a category 4. 7. Parking- credit – can mitigate via cash in lieu 8. Trash, delivery, transformer – alley. The applicant will work with engineering to mitigate any new trips. Bus passes for employees, etc. 9. Automatic three years of vested rights, which protects them from changes in the code. This project was approved under the pre-moratorium code. When the city plan was here in August, it was considered an essential public facility and there was no housing. The city was going to provide all credits because it was a unique opportunity to create a city hall annex space right across the street. Ms. Garrow said there were different review standards for that request for an essential public facility. There were also criteria related to waiving mitigation 5 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION DECEMBER 12, 2018 requirements from council to promote civic uses and broader community goals, which created a unique opportunity to for city offices in a campus-like situation. Mr. Halferty asked if staff is suggesting that the city can play by different rules than a private applicant when it comes to employee housing. Mr. True said yes, there are different review standards, which the code provides and different rules. Ms. Garrow said the city was going to use its own credits. This aspect hinges on the location requirement standards, which is why the specific language was pulled for this presentation. It is absolutely within HPC’s authority to find that credits are appropriate here and is within HPC’s purview. APPLICANT PRESENTATION: Chris Bendon of Bendon Adams, Mark Hunt & Chris Bryan of Garfield & Hecht Mr. Bendon thanked HPC for their service to preservation. He showed the conceptual approval on screen and mentioned that Mr. Hunt is the largest credit holder of housing credits currently. The approval for retail and city offices was just given with the housing mitigation offsite on August 1st. The proposal for tonight is for retail and offices. There is a new exciting tenant he wants to talk about that we have leased up for the space. The roof would be the same and the façade would be more lively and we can work with staff and monitor on this aspect. The retail and city offices were required to meet the multi-family replacement standards. In addition, it was required to meet the essential public facility. With retail and non-city offices, we have to meet those first three criteria: HPC, commercial design review and a multi-family replacement. Both projects had to address this standard. He showed on screen the requirements for demolishing affordable multifamily housing units, which references section 26.470.070.5.2. The location requirement is important – he read to the board. The importance of this is that the city had to address this same standard. The recommendation you see in front of you tonight is for denial under this standard. Staff and APCHA do not support the use of credits. The growth management criteria have not been met according to staff. We did go to the APCHA board and they previously recommended the use of credits for the city project, so we were thinking they would recommend approval for an all commercial project. We are getting a transcript of the meeting and have some suspicion around a couple of members and their possible bias. There was one member who was upset because he used to live in one of these units. We think he made his decision based on this and another woman commented on the change in the retail environment downtown and suggested we don’t need more retail pop up stores. We were caught off guard by this. He ran through APCHA’S approval for the city project. He feels they have already demonstrated compliance with the same criterion which the city met with its project. We think as community members, you can be proud of this project. He mentioned HanaHaus in Silicon Valley as an amazing shared workspace. There is a huge buzz surrounding this and is a retail and commercial shared workspace. We have a tenant currently on board with this same idea and we don’t currently want to say exactly who it is. They have their own marketing and roll out plan, but it’s a signed deal and they are ready to come with it. We are very excited about this space and it is actually one of city council’s top 9 goals. #5 is to look at shared work spaces. Mr. Hunt said they were really excited to work with the city. Recently, he felt a little blindsided and surprised with some of the recommendations coming through. We’ve always put our best foot forward and tried to do the right thing, not just in a vacuum on a single property, but regarding offices, housing, retail, local, etc. It’s an important mix. Shortly after the election, towards the end, we had some discussions for this type of use. Maybe things happen for a reason. A huge challenge was natural light 6 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION DECEMBER 12, 2018 and he is proud of the work that was done with the city to find solutions for this to make a compelling development. This is truly dynamic and opens up opportunities to all of us. The problem, for him, regarding housing units, is that they are taking the only wall that gets the southern light and creating subpar housing in the alley right above the trash and also makes subpar commercial space. We believe this tenant is perfection for this town and truly is dynamic. There are shared spaces, delis, café, a bar, health and fitness classes. They will open their doors to anyone who wants a shared work space. Office space like this is such a shortage and it’s a real opportunity. There’s very little commercial space in the downtown area. He truly puts forward what he thinks is right for the community. We will end up with a bank or pharmacy in this space if not and it’s a miss to the community. This is something we want and is truly the last piece of property in town where something like this can happen. We are going above and beyond and asking for your help and support. Mr. Bendon mentioned that David Johnston Architects have been a key element for the transition of this building and have been instrumental in turning the light on to the shared office space and vision. Collin Frank is here representing David Johnston Architects. This is a fully mitigated project and we are not side stepping anything. It’s our position that it meets the same standard as the city. The project relies on having the solar light down through the center of the building. Mr. Kendrick said Aspen isn’t Palo Alto; it’s much smaller and less people to drawn from to make a project like this successful. How do we make sure that going forward, we aren’t giving up housing for this space to be turned into retail 5-10 years down the road? Mr. Bendon said he agrees, this isn’t Silicon Valley, but he just started his own business and he would have appreciated a collaborative space to have in lieu of initial startup costs when anyone is starting a business. Will it be here forever? Maybe not, but there is a lot of change in retail that we are all seeing. Mr. Kendrick said he doesn’t want to see more high-end retail. Tell us about the offsite housing. Mr. Bendon mentioned the Base Lodge and said there is one approval there they would like to convert to affordable housing for 22 units. We see this as a fabulous opportunity to rehouse tenants. Ms. Greenwood said she recollects that this board made statements toward the end of the approval for this building, that they would allow you to maintain your approvals with all commercial. She felt the board agreed to that. Ms. Simon said the resolution said the exact opposite. Ms. Greenwood said the board generally felt that they should be able to keep their approvals. She said it was in the meeting minutes. A level of fairness was where the board was coming from. Ms. Garrow said that if HPC likes this idea and it’s exciting and thinks it’s appropriate, you could use the location requirement standard and you can make that finding that the housing is an inappropriate solution due to physical constraints. Our recommendation is that you hold the applicant to this representation and that in section 11, that there be added language about a co-work space on the second floor but hold the applicant to the representation to address the location requirement. Mr. Moyer said they didn’t address the large two-story fenestration. Mr. Bendon said when they went through for the City project, there was concern about that needing more refinement and would be worked out with staff and monitor. He is assuming it is still staff’s position that it still needs more refinement. We would still like to connect into 204 as we wanted to with the annex, so we have the same desire to align these floors and connect them. 7 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION DECEMBER 12, 2018 Mr. Blaich asked about the potential tenant and if they are interested in the additional space. Mr. Hunt said yes, they would need that space including the Kitchen space. There are two requirements for the tenant, the natural light and square footage. Ms. Berko said the city does play by different rules whether we like it or not, so she is having trouble understanding the comparison of the previous approval and their current approval. Ms. Greenwood said the city had the same criteria for being able to satisfy the housing need off site as the applicants are proposing. Mr. Bendon said that is correct. Ms. Garrow said that is not correct along with Mr. True because their presentation was made as an “essential public facility”, which allowed HPC to waive the requirements due to providing civic services. Mr. Bendon said we are not subject to the essential public facility standards, but we are subject to the multifamily replacement standards instead. If it’s good enough for the city, it’s good enough for us. Mr. True said we want to focus on this and resolve this because I believe you are ok with the provision within the proposed resolution that would recognize the commitment to the proposal that Mr. Hunt spent time explaining. That would perhaps allow more consideration of the onsite property being an inappropriate solution due to the site’s physical constraints. The way Mr. Hunt has described the physical constraints, they do not contemplate affordable housing. We want to make sure that representation carries forward. Ms. Garrow said we would want this to be very specific because we’ve all seen this property a few times. We’ve talked a lot about what is happening in this building, so if HPC finds that the location requirement shouldn’t be met with onsite housing, we want you to include specific language that it is for this co-work space and that a future change would need to be reviewed. Ms. Greenwood said staff can help us with the language if it goes that direction. MOTION: Mr. Blaich motioned to extend the meeting past 7:00 p.m., Ms. Berko seconded. All in favor, motion carried. PUBLIC COMMENT: Peter Fornell There are some compelling points about this mitigation. The City of Aspen has a 120 million dollar a year budget and we all benefit from this budget. The lion’s share of our tax base comes from the commercial core. We rely on these dollars for all things that we all utilize and take benefit from. A thousand square feet of affordable housing produces $300 a year in property taxes. A thousand square feet of free market commercial produces $15,000 a year in property taxes, including taxes for housing. The five people that we are considering housing, will benefit 5 people. Moving the affordable housing to an offsite location, will till benefit the 5 people and the building will additionally assist all of us in the community. Those of us going in to use this building with the five FTE’s is very limited. The likelihood of many of us going in to use the second floor of this building as commercial space, is very likely. The certificate program needs the support of the commercial developer. I hope you guys all see the wisdom and have our residential housing be in a residential area. We still have room to build more affordable housing. Let’s use the available space for this purpose of co-work space. 8 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION DECEMBER 12, 2018 Andrew Sandler: Mr. Sandler said he wants to underscore what Mr. Fornell said. When we sit in this room, he finds that often we suffer from paralysis by analysis in this room. We overanalyze the code and make the best decision for the city, but we have to just go off instincts and fundamentals. There are always exceptions to these rules and situational. We need to look at the cost vs benefit. The shared spaces and shared thinking, whether in Palo Alto or here, is a feather in our caps. This will highlight and complement the rest of the town. It helps the surrounding businesses as well. Let’s look at the opportunity of cost vs benefit and don’t kick the can down the road. We have to think about the now. He urges the board to think about the tax base and everyone in the community. Matt Brown: Mr. Brown said he has been in front of HPC for his project at 834 Hallam. He said the two speakers in front of him, said what he wanted to come up with. They did a great job. I felt like my conversations with APCHA, was really supportive of finding more dedicated sites for housing. I didn’t know the plans or potential vendors for this building either, but he does believe Mr. Hunt when he says he’s invested in building dedicated sites for affordable housing for the larger picture. We have to look at the time and place of this and the particular circumstance. Let’s focus on offsite housing. This was not their objective, they would prefer things offsite. From a tax base and vibrancy, this is compelling to him. Bill Small: Mr. Small said his company is Zenith Realty Advisors. He has personally been involved in commercial real estate for 30 years. He has personally been responsible for many of the leases in downtown Aspen. The unique aspect I bring to this is that he wants to speak about the shared offices. Quality shared office facilities are the fastest growing in the United States. There really is a huge demand for this kind of thing. The whole way we use office space, is changing. Companies are changing. Independent contractors, etc. here in Aspen, have come to him to get a single office space, so there is a strong demand for this type of thing. We need office space for the next generation of millennials. It’s an exciting office amenity. This kind of thing is a catalyst to service this new part of the population. Montrose shared office facility is very vibrant and energetic. Great amenity. Bill Stirling: Mr. Stirling said he appreciates the tug of war and the balancing of the issues. Mr. Stirling is a big proponent of option A in the election and the people did speak pretty clearly about the alternative. He said he has no engagement with the applicant in any way, whatsoever, but he has some thoughts to share. Two years ago, limits were put on chain stores in downtown Aspen. Ms. Garrow confirmed that this took place in 2015, but she mentioned that this property is exempt. The idea was to create more locally owned businesses downtown and to change the oxymoron, which is affordable commercial into something that it could be, like affordable housing, which is not an oxymoron. The purpose was to bring back the concept of locally owned businesses and affordable commercial space. The spirit of what this proposal has is in line with this idea. The one try downtown for this incubator approach, was over where the old state street theater used to be, but they couldn’t manage the finances. The city proposed the old art museum for this concept, instead, but was resisted by neighbors and didn’t pan out. I think the purpose of this project is, in spirit with what the town is after. Affordable housing shouldn’t only be in residential areas. There is still a lot downtown and it doesn’t have to be one way or the other. In long 9 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION DECEMBER 12, 2018 term interest of the community, let’s work on a compromise. This is a legitimate concern and we do need to keep a wonderful mix and the messy vitality that is Aspen. Toni Kronberg: Ms. Kronberg said the very first time she spoke in front of a group 40 years ago, was when Bill Stirling was mayor. She said the question before him at the time was regarding whether they were going to build a rec center or build something for the arts and the arts won out. It took 20 years to get a recreation center. Ms. Kronberg went on to say that she wants to support the all commercial building. A lot of other places benefit from the tax revenues generated in the commercial core. If it’s affordable housing, they won’t generate the sales tax. As you were told tonight, it’s within your purview to approve this request. One of the things she heard loud and clear in the election, is that people didn’t want to lose the retail space. This building really does have a constraint in it and you would really diminish the work space if affordable housing were added. She said she wanted to echo all of the other speakers and points they have made. Is affordable housing really an appropriate use for this property? We would like to have quality of life and having a unit in an alley isn’t great. You would really be satisfying the younger generation for shared office space. It’s a win win condition for everyone. It’s funny how it all circles around. Chris Bendon read a letter from Linda Manning and was entered into the public record. Mr. Bendon quoted Ms. Manning as saying that this is exactly the type of business which Aspen needs to support our business community. It will deliver just what is needed and is providing vitality and benefit to the entire community. It should receive the same support as previous application received. Ms. Greenwood said her daughter lives in San Francisco and she’s in a shared office space and has allowed she and her friends to interact and become an entrepreneur. She loves this idea and mentioned that she works out of the Elks building and said it’s affordable office space, but currently have a waiting list of 30 people. She said there isn’t enough affordable office space in the city. This would be a win win for developers to have these grand spaces. She knows this alley very well and it’s super busy and is not suitable for living. Trucks are always running and it’s very dark. She doesn’t feel like we’d be losing any housing and would be an excellent concept for our town to tie the approval to it. This is an exciting and important project and she would like to see this building be all commercial and tie this to and affordable housing situation. This has really worked in San Francisco for her daughter because ideas are exchanged and its life changing. It’s much more vital than affordable housing for this site. She hopes that we can agree to do this as it would be an excellent ending to this building. Mr. Moyer said he agrees in this situation, that the building should be all commercial. He would like to be able to demand a third floor for employee housing. He’d also like to demand employee housing in the Kitchen building, but he doesn’t think we can do that at this time, but maybe something to look into for the future. The design on the two-story can be handled by a monitor. We do need a clause that there will be a guarantee that they will provide housing in or close to the core. Mr. Blaich said he supports this project. We approved this design before and he doesn’t know why they would want to change it. The shared work space is a national and international trend. He said he was party to starting this in 1964 with Herman Miller, when they invented the “action office”. It was an open plan concept and it was the start of this breaking down the walls of a traditional office. He said he 10 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION DECEMBER 12, 2018 subscribes to a design magazine, Metropolis, and in almost every issue, they are dealing with this subject. This isn’t just in Palo Alto, but all over the country. I think it’s a very healthy step and I’ve always supported affordable housing, but he doesn’t feel it’s appropriate in this building. Because of the environment of the alley, he thinks the project stands on its own. Mr. Kendrick said he does really like the idea of having the startup businesses having a place to operate out of. He’s still a little concerned about how it operates and being able to fill it with local people and not other corporations coming in and using up the space. He thinks it’s worth giving it a shot. He would like to see the affordable housing built somewhere near the town core. You have to trust people and he knows that Mr. Hunt will be in front of HPC again and that he will do what he says. I would stand in favor of the full commercial. Mr. Halferty said he supports the application. He said the applicant has been very patient. The city government vs the private sector has always been complex. What’s good for the goose, is good for the gander, so he thinks it’s perfectly appropriate. Whoever the tenant is, is a great collaboration for the space. He was working a lot just to pay for his space, when he started his own office in 1995. The front façade and alley can be handled by staff and monitor. The housing credits are more than sufficient. The applicant has shown his commitment to employee housing and is well prepared to move this offsite. Overall, he said he is in complete support of this project. Ms. Berko said that any of us who are connected with young people, know that work space is really a challenge. We all know people who live and work in these spaces. Theoretically, she believes in on site housing, but feels it’s a difficult situation. She is fine leaving the facades and alley to staff and monitor. She thanked the public commenters for all of the input and thinks it was really helpful. She would like some sort of clause on the use as the others have mentioned. She’s in favor of this project. Mr. Lai said he will make it unanimous as he is also in favor of the project. He said he’d like to speak a little bit as a former academic. He said that James Jacobs is always talking about the necessity of having housing to inject “exuberant vitality” into an area. If you walk around downtown Aspen, even at one or two a.m., the last thing we have is quiet, so we don’t need to have the exuberant diversity that housing brings because we have so much already. We don’t need to have affordable housing on the alley either. Ideally, he’d like to have affordable housing in the downtown, but that is really against the market. There is a strong current towards having incubator commercial space, so it is something we need to try. He agrees with the cautionary tale from Ms. Berko, that we need to have a clause for the future. He said he was personally disappointed with the vote as he liked the idea of having city offices right across the street from city hall. He likes the design, but the façade he’d like to hold off on. Generally, he likes it. Ms. Greenwood summed it up and said it’s unanimous for the building being commercial. Ms. Garrow said that staff has two suggestions for the resolution. The first is in section 3 related to employee generation and mitigation. The first paragraph has been edited to read, “the historic preservation commission has determined that existing affordable housing has been replaced through housing credits equivalent to 5 FTE’s at a Category 1”. Mr. True said that section also needs to have a finding pursuant to the code that HPC determines that the units on site are an inappropriate due to the sites physical constraints. The physical constraints were made regarding what is proposed there. The second change would add at the end of section 11 to address the representations which create those physical constraints. Ms. Garrow read the amended section as, “HPC has determined that the replacement is inappropriate due to the site’s physical constraints and the existing affordable housing may be replaced 11 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION DECEMBER 12, 2018 through credits at 5 FTE’s at category 1. Material representations and commitments. This would include the “representations that co work space will occupy all of the second-floor net leasable space and will not be replaced with another use unless approved by HPC”. Ms. Garrow mentioned adding to section 1, a subsection 1.3, which says a connection between 517 and 204 would be permitted pursuant to the representation. Mr. Bendon agreed this is fine. MOTION: Mr. Lai motioned with the amendments, Mr. Moyer seconded. Roll call vote: Mr. Blaich, yes; Mr. Kendrick, yes; Mr. Halferty, yes; Ms. Berko, yes; Ms. Greenwood, yes; Mr. Moyer, yes; Mr. Lai, yes. 7-0, motion carried. Ms. Simon said they will do the year in review at the first meeting in January. MOTION: Mr. Kendrick motioned to adjourn, Mr. Halferty seconded. All in favor, motion carried at 7:53 p.m. __________________________________ Nicole Henning, Deputy City Clerk